The Emprical Method - Objectively defining what constitutes an "explanation".

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In that case, I'll discuss the scientific method.&nbsp; First an idea develops an hypothesis.&nbsp; Then the hypothesis is tested.&nbsp; Only when a valid hypothesis fails to be disproved, does it become a theory.&nbsp; Throwing that word around is a shame to science.&nbsp; I guess that's all I really had to say.&nbsp; Was kind of looking for Mike's feedback as well, since he is seemingly versed&nbsp;in ideas of electrical plasma physics.&nbsp; <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>It takes a bit more than failing to be disproved for a theory to be accepted.&nbsp; It must provide a positive and correct predictions of what is observed in experiment and in nature.&nbsp; Any valid disproof is enough for a theory to be rejected, or at least viewed as only a approximation that is accurate within a limited domain.&nbsp; But lack of disproof is not enough for acceptance.</p><p>An untestable theory will not be disproven.&nbsp; Even so it is not accepted.&nbsp; Positive proof and and ability to be falsified inprinciple are hallmarks of valide theories.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>An untestable theory will not be disproven.&nbsp; Even so it is not accepted.&nbsp; Positive proof and and ability to be falsified inprinciple are hallmarks of valide theories. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Untestable would not qualify for "valid" hypothesis.</p><p>There is no such thing as positive proof, in my opinion.&nbsp; I will stick with my interpretation of a valid hypothesis that withstands any tests that attempt to disprove it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[Doc_Grey]

<p>KLB,</p><p>I if I deeply truly believe that galaxies are held together by&nbsp;giant strings of invisible&nbsp;bubble gum&nbsp;(very sticky!), is my untestable hypothesis as valid as your equally untestable (and equally ridiculous) electromass theory?</p>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Untestable would not qualify for "valid" hypothesis.</DIV></p><p>This is the part they "don't get".&nbsp; Inflation isn't real.&nbsp; It doesn't exist.&nbsp; It's a figment of human imagination, specifically Guth's imagination.&nbsp; It has no affect on reality in any sort of controlled experiment.&nbsp; It's unlike any other vector or scalar field found in nature as well.&nbsp; It's literally a "supernatural" field that does density defying tricks for breakfast.</p><p>It's also completely and utterly "untestable" in any emprical setting, in any emprical test, in any concievable way.&nbsp; It's therefore not "science", it is "pseudo-science", since we are forced to simply *assume* it exists or it existed at some point in the distant past.&nbsp; That makes it a form of "dogma", not a form of "science".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no such thing as positive proof, in my opinion.&nbsp; I will stick with my interpretation of a valid hypothesis that withstands any tests that attempt to disprove it. <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>There is such a thing however as "emprical evidence".&nbsp; Electrons are not shy around controlled emprical tests.&nbsp; We can "observe" what they do to other physical objects in emprical tests.&nbsp; We can isolate the source of electrons, turn them on and off, and watch the net result in controlled experimentation.</p><p>Compare and contrast that with inflation. &nbsp;&nbsp; No one knows where it comes from, where I might get some to experiment with, how we might "control" them in some sort of emprical test, or if it even exists outside of human imagination.&nbsp; It's not "science".&nbsp; It's *dogma* that cannot be verified or falsfified in any controlled experiment. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It takes a bit more than failing to be disproved for a theory to be accepted.</DIV></p><p>Evidently all it takes for something to be accepted in this industry is a mathematical expression of some kind.&nbsp; Elves won't fly, but elves with a mathematical sidekick are fine.</p><p>Inflation isn't real, but it has a mathematical expression that fools folks like you to into believing it actually exists in nature.&nbsp; It doesn not exist outside of human imagination, which is why you can't show us a single emprical test with a control mechanism that demonstrates that it's not a figment of your imagination.</p><p>Electricity is not shy around a lab.&nbsp; It exists in nature and it show up in emprical tests.&nbsp; We therefore know that it is not a figment of human imagination, but rather it's an emprical force of nature.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It must provide a positive and correct predictions of what is observed in experiment and in nature.</DIV></p><p>Then density defying elves can pilfer your math related to inflation and claim themselves to be real.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Any valid disproof is enough for a theory to be rejected,</DIV></p><p>One can't disprove something that has never been "proven" to begin with.&nbsp; I can't test the properties "dark energy" or non baryonic forms of "dark matter", or "inflation", because none of them actually exist in nature and none of them show up in emprical testing.&nbsp;&nbsp; All the supposed "properties" of these things are simply "ad hoc" contructs that defy any sort of emprical support.&nbsp; They are "made up", and "contrived" properties that literally defy all the known physics we have.&nbsp; What other known scalar or vector field in nature will undergo numberous exponential increases in volume without a signficant decrease in density?&nbsp;&nbsp; The answer of course is "none".&nbsp; Nothing like it actually exists in nature.</p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.&nbsp; Positive proof and and ability to be falsified inprinciple are hallmarks of valide theories. <br /><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Sure, but point at the sky excersizes do not constitute "positive proof".&nbsp; There's no control mechanisms involved in point at the sky exersizes.&nbsp; You could claim elves did it, slap on a little math and then find "positive proof" of anything in distant uncontrolled observations.</p><p>The *CONTROL MECHANISM* seems to be something your industry has never heard of, or put no value in. &nbsp; Emprical testing is not something you can just "skip".&nbsp; It's a necessary step in science.&nbsp; Ignoring the need to do real emprical testing with real control mechanisms has led this industry astray IMO.&nbsp; Only a real focus on the actual scientific method has any hope of changing ths industry for the better. </p><p>You for instance can't produce any "dark energy", you don't know what it is, but you reject mathematical link between EM fields and "dark energy".&nbsp;&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; The math is all there.&nbsp; Why do you reject replacing "dark energy" with EM fields when EM fields have been shown to work as well as "dark energy" theory to explain this observation of acceleration of plasma?&nbsp; You reject the idea based on blind prejudice of EU theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That may be so, but this thread isn't about Birkeland...its about the scientific method.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Yes, but Birkeland was a perfect example of a "real scientist" that used the "real emprical method" in his experiments.&nbsp; He built control mechanisms into his experiments.&nbsp; He didnt' just point at the aurora, whip up a little math and claim that "dark energy did it".&nbsp; That's not science folks, that's "pseudoscience".&nbsp; Emprical science requires emprical experimentations with real control mechanisms.&nbsp;</p><p>The bottom line here is that only 4% of the universe is thought to be composed of normal baryonic matter. 96% of Lambda-CDM theory is based upon mythical entities that are shy around a lab.&nbsp; 96 percent of current theory is pure pseudo-religious dogma that is utterly devoid emprical support.&nbsp;&nbsp; Inflation isn't real.&nbsp; It's a figment of Guth's imagination.&nbsp; "Dark energy" isn't real either.&nbsp; It's a placeholder term for human ignorance.&nbsp; The prevailing theory in this industry is not based on emprical science, it is based upon "faith" in things that have never been shown to exist in nature. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, because electromass agrees with birkland.&nbsp; If you do take the time to read through it, please provide feedback under the electromass discussion thread. <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Pretty much every observation we've made in space over the last 100 years agrees with Birkeland. The problem is that this industry is too proud to admit that a guy from 100 years ago knew more about the unvierse than astronomers today. That just doesn't sit well with the mainstream.</p><p>Nevermind the fact that Birkeland made a host of real "predictions" that have since been shown to be true.&nbsp; Nevermind the fact that mathematical analysis demonstrates that dark energy can be replace with EM fields.&nbsp; Nevermind the fact that "dark energy' has never been shown to exist in nature.&nbsp; Nevermind any real empirical "facts".</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah, if a Walmart plasma ball on your desk constitutes a laboratory experiment. http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&resnum=0&q=plasma+ball+lamp+Walmart&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It does actually have a real "control mechanism" DrRocket.&nbsp; You can turn off the switch on the side and watch what happens when the electrons stop flowing through the plasma.&nbsp; Show me *any* control mechanism for inflation or "dark energy".&nbsp; There isn't one because none exist.&nbsp; You don't even know where they come from, or if they even exist.&nbsp; All you know is that you have "faith" in these ideas dispite the fact that not one single consumer product is based upon either dark energy or inflation. &nbsp; You can't buy anything from Walmart that uses either dark energy or inflation to do anything. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pretty much every observation we've made in space over the last 100 years agrees with Birkeland. The problem is that this industry is too proud to admit that a guy from 100 years ago knew more about the unvierse than astronomers today. That just doesn't sit well with the mainstream.Nevermind the fact that Birkeland made a host of real "predictions" that have since been shown to be true.&nbsp; Nevermind the fact that mathematical analysis demonstrates that dark energy can be replace with EM fields.&nbsp; Nevermind the fact that "dark energy' has never been shown to exist in nature.&nbsp; Nevermind any real empirical "facts". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>NASA ADS search for Birkeland yields:&nbsp; Retrieved <strong>200</strong> abstracts, starting with number <strong>1</strong>. Total number selected: <strong>406</strong>.</p><p>Yup, those mainstream folk totally ignore everything Birkeland ever did alright. &nbsp;</p><p>Also mathematical analysis didn't demonstrate dark energy can be replaced with EM fields.&nbsp; They suggested it and made a flimsy argument that is too unjustified to know for sure whether it's true or not.&nbsp; You are just inclined to accept it at face value because that is what your EU dogma would have you do. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Mike,</p><p>I understand this is an emotionally charged subject.&nbsp; But try to gain composure.&nbsp; Sometimes, I'll write and organize my thoughts in a word document before posting them.&nbsp; I also pump myself full of Depakote to keep from breaking the keys in a typing fit.&nbsp; Rest assured that you are not alone, and that all of the phenomenon can&nbsp;be explained with&nbsp;the&nbsp;fantasy of electromassive fields, each of two things we can observe in a lab.&nbsp; I understand you're jaded, and I'm certain they have not been very nice to you.&nbsp; Just give&nbsp;them time to let it soak in.&nbsp; </p><p>-Justin</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>mathematical analysis didn't demonstrate dark energy can be replaced with EM fields.&nbsp; They suggested it and made a flimsy argument that is too unjustified to know for sure whether it's true or not.&nbsp; Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />Correct.&nbsp; But a few pages of work can show that the distance between two charged-masses spinning varies with charge density.&nbsp; That can be done on paper, without dark energy.&nbsp; I don't blame you if you don't know the math.&nbsp; I've only seen it and struggled to make par.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mike,I understand this is an emotionally charged subject.&nbsp; But try to gain composure.&nbsp; Sometimes, I'll write and organize my thoughts in a word document before posting them.&nbsp; I also pump myself full of Depakote to keep from breaking the keys in a typing fit.&nbsp; Rest assured that you are not alone, and that all of the phenomenon can&nbsp;be explained with&nbsp;the&nbsp;fantasy of electromassive fields, each of two things we can observe in a lab.&nbsp; I understand you're jaded, and I'm certain they have not been very nice to you.&nbsp; Just give&nbsp;them time to let it soak in.&nbsp; -Justin <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>I suppose that this is excellent advice.&nbsp; I guess I have in fact been "jaded" as you put it by recent events.&nbsp; I do hear you, but sometimes I get tired of the one sided debate as though mainstream theory is somehow above criiticism only because it is 'popular'.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NASA ADS search for Birkeland yields:&nbsp; Retrieved 200 abstracts, starting with number 1. Total number selected: 406.Yup, those mainstream folk totally ignore everything Birkeland ever did alright.</DIV></p><p>As it relates to where those electrons come from they sure did.&nbsp; The mainstream has in fact accepted that electrical current run through the magnetopshere. What they refuse to embrace is *how* those electrons get there, where they come from, and how they were "created" in Birkeland's experiments.&nbsp; None of his solar ideas have been accepted by the mainstream, and none of his "beyond the magnetosphere" concepts have been accepted by the mainstream.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's like the electricity begins and ends at the magetosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also mathematical analysis didn't demonstrate dark energy can be replaced with EM fields.</DIV></p><p>Show me the line number then where they made a mathematical error of any sort.&nbsp; I've been specific to the line number in my criticisms.&nbsp; I expect the same will be true of your criticisms as well.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They suggested it </DIV></p><p>They mathematically *linked* it and demonstrated it to be plausible.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and made a flimsy argument that is too unjustified to know for sure whether it's true or not. </DIV></p><p>Define the term "flimsy" and explain how "dark energy' is somehow "better"? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are just inclined to accept it at face value because that is what your EU dogma would have you do. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I am inclined to accept it because I see *numberous* other pieces of information that also congruent with Birkeland's original theories, including those hundred billion volt electrons that bombard our solar system, those million degree coronal loops, and those massive electromagetic eruptions in the solar atmosphere and every large planet with a dense atmosphere in the solar system.&nbsp; Electrical discharges are not just found around Earth, they occur in Saturns atmosphere in a far more powerful way too.&nbsp; They also occur in the solar atmosphere, but the mainstream *refuses* to accept it, even though Birkeland emprically demonstrated this over 100 years ago. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Correct.&nbsp; But a few pages of work can show that the distance between two charged-masses spinning varies with charge density.&nbsp; That can be done on paper, without dark energy.&nbsp; I don't blame you if you don't know the math.&nbsp; I've only seen it and struggled to make par.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>...what?&nbsp; Are you trying to suggest dark energy=coulomb force?&nbsp; Have you even tried to do a calculation to determine the ridiculously high charge that every astronomical body would need to have for the expansion of the universe to be caused by that? &nbsp;</p><p>Also, I may not be on par mathematically with someone such as DrRocket, but I do have degrees in both physics and astronomy and am working on an astronomy PhD.&nbsp; So don't talk down to me about not understanding the math.&nbsp; Your "electromass" nonsense is just that...nonsense.&nbsp;</p><p> I have not discounted the paper michael posted.&nbsp; I just don't find it to be very convincing.&nbsp; That doesn't mean it's wrong.&nbsp; But I think the authors are making quite a leap to reach the conclusions they do. &nbsp; I also find it strange that after insisting on only talking about empirical experiments for months on end, michael suddenly posts a paper completely devoid of it.&nbsp; "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" eh? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...what?&nbsp; Are you trying to suggest dark energy=coulomb force?&nbsp; Have you even tried to do a calculation to determine the ridiculously high charge that every astronomical body would need to have for the expansion of the universe to be caused by that?<br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />I apologize if I offended you.&nbsp; But you didn't seem to think charges would spin.&nbsp; According to electrodynamics, two things would make it spin.&nbsp; Presence of a flow of current towards its pole, or from magnetic induction from a nearby spinning charged object.&nbsp; I'm not suggesting anything to do with any expansion of the universe.&nbsp; I'm suggesting that at Z />1, charge dies off, and galaxies get bigger and dimmer.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I apologize if I offended you.&nbsp; But you didn't seem to think charges would spin.&nbsp; According to electrodynamics, two things would make it spin.&nbsp; Presence of a flow of current towards its pole, or from magnetic induction from a nearby spinning charged object.&nbsp; I'm not suggesting anything to do with any expansion of the universe.&nbsp; I'm suggesting that at Z />1, charge dies off, and galaxies get bigger and dimmer.&nbsp; <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV><br /><br />Unfortunately for your position, there is NO evidence that charge can possibly be a significant force at galactic scales. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It does actually have a real "control mechanism" DrRocket.&nbsp; You can turn off the switch on the side and watch what happens when the electrons stop flowing through the plasma.&nbsp; Show me *any* control mechanism for inflation or "dark energy".&nbsp; There isn't one because none exist.&nbsp; You don't even know where they come from, or if they even exist.&nbsp; All you know is that you have "faith" in these ideas dispite the fact that not one single consumer product is based upon either dark energy or inflation. &nbsp; You can't buy anything from Walmart that uses either dark energy or inflation to do anything. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Huh?</p><p>If there is any logic here or connection to physics you are going to have to make that connection a LOT more clear.&nbsp;</p><p>BTW you have absolutely no idea what I know, so it would behoove you to not make statements in that regard.&nbsp; What is becoming abundantly clear is what you do not know. </p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm suggesting that at Z />1, charge dies off, and galaxies get bigger and dimmer.&nbsp; <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>That's a swell suggestion.&nbsp; Do you have any evidence of this or is this just a suggestion?&nbsp;<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's a swell suggestion.&nbsp; Do you have any evidence of this or is this just a suggestion?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Because the extension cord doesn't reach any further than that, obviously...how do you expect them to be bright if they aren't plugged in? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I apologize if I offended you.&nbsp; But you didn't seem to think charges would spin.&nbsp; According to electrodynamics, two things would make it spin.&nbsp; Presence of a flow of current towards its pole, or from magnetic induction from a nearby spinning charged object.&nbsp; I'm not suggesting anything to do with any expansion of the universe.&nbsp; I'm suggesting that at Z />1, charge dies off, and galaxies get bigger and dimmer.&nbsp; <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>We are talking here about a static charge on an initially stationary and non-rotating&nbsp;sphere, and either a DC current&nbsp;entering and leaving at antipodal points or a&nbsp;possible a nearby charged sphere spinning at constant rate, no?</p><p>Would you care to trot out Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force equation and explain from whence the&nbsp;torque on this charged sphere arises to cause this spin ?&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We are talking here about a static charge on an initially stationary and non-rotating&nbsp;sphere, and either a DC current&nbsp;entering and leaving at antipodal points or a&nbsp;possible a nearby charged sphere spinning at constant rate, no?</DIV></p><p>Actually, no, not necessarily.&nbsp;&nbsp; One of the bigger debates about solar system formation theories relates to the "missing momentum".&nbsp; We're essentially talking about potentially high speed rotation that eventually dies down, converting it's spin momentum into induction currents over time.&nbsp; The die off in light would relate to an overall slowdown in the spin of the stars of that galaxy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Would you care to trot out Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force equation and explain from whence the&nbsp;torque on this charged sphere arises to cause this spin ?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I think you're working the problem backwards.&nbsp; The spin momentum comes from the formation of the sun which causes the sun to spin at a relatively high speed as it forms.&nbsp; It slows down over time. &nbsp;&nbsp; I've I'm understanding the theory correctly, that's what he/she's trying to suggest, not that some other force drives the spin.&nbsp; The could of course be "wired together" in those "circuits" Alfven talked about and actually share some of their overall induction currents. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Huh?If there is any logic here or connection to physics you are going to have to make that connection a LOT more clear.</DIV></p><p>The "connection to physics" is found in the fact I can buy a device from Walmart that uses and runs on EM fields.&nbsp; Compare and contrast that now with the fact that not one single consumer product at Walmart runs on inflation or dark energy.&nbsp; You only seem to be fixated on what is a form of "software science", where anything with mathematical model is 'acceptable".&nbsp; Virtual worlds can be built from math formulas that in no way resemble reality.&nbsp; 'Hardware science" is something that is physically tangible, and emprically demonstrateable with real control mechanisms.&nbsp; Emrpical science is the combination of both software and hardware verification.&nbsp; You're only doing and interested in half of the work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>BTW you have absolutely no idea what I know, so it would behoove you to not make statements in that regard.&nbsp; What is becoming abundantly clear is what you do not know. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>What is absolutely clear is that you know absolutely nothing about "EU theory" because you won't bother to read the materials I suggested.&nbsp; Nevermind that the guy that developed the theory won the Nobel prize for his work in MHD theory, DrRocket already is certain the idea is garbage without ever bothering to even read it.&nbsp; Sheesh.... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...What is absolutely clear is that you know absolutely nothing about "EU theory" because you won't bother to read the materials I suggested.&nbsp; Nevermind that the guy that developed the theory won the Nobel prize for his work in MHD theory, DrRocket already is certain the idea is garbage without ever bothering to even read it.&nbsp; Sheesh.... <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>That is an outright and deliberate LIE.&nbsp; As you know very well, I have purchased and read Alfven's <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics</em> and have read quite a few of his papers.&nbsp; The fact that I have not purchased his <em>Cosmic Plasma</em> hardly means that I am not acquainted with his work.&nbsp; You may recall that parts of <em>Cosmic Plasma</em> are available on line and several of us, including me, pointed out serious misconception on your part as to what Alfven was saying in that book.&nbsp; You have continually misrepresented Alfven's work, and as I have pointed out on numerous occasions I agree with what I have read of his work, but at the same time totally disagree with your misrepresentations of that same work.</p><p>So, why don't you respond to my challenge in the twin thread to actually, and for the first time, clearly state and support your own version of EU theory ?&nbsp; Give a rigorous statement and back it up with real science, not cartoons and "looks like" but irrelevant photographs from ancient experiments.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your other posts are so long I don't have the time to count, but do you realize how often you repeat yourself, even within a single post? </DIV></p><p>I find that is often required when introducing someone to a relatively new idea, or a specific point of view they keep overlooking. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This time you even managed to do so the very next sentence.&nbsp; I count three times in a row in that little paragraph that you explain why you started the thread, all of them saying exactly the same thing.&nbsp; I never read your long posts anymore for that very reason...all you do is rehash rehash rehash. &nbsp;I'm not sure why you even brought up MOND. </DIV></p><p>I brought up MOND theory because it's a great example of another 'minority' perspective, that treated completely differently than EU theory.&nbsp; The word "electricity" seems to be the one thing this industry is deathly afraid of.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It has failed miserably as a theory a long time ago, based on the criteria DrRocket gave for theories. </DIV></p><p>There are no "criteria" actually specified other than the requirement it fit observation and has a mathematical presentation. &nbsp; Nobody is banning that topic from discussion on the SS&A forum, or any other theory *besides* the one DrRocket doesn't like and refuses to educate himself on.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It was/is not capable of predicting what we actually see in the universe. </DIV></p><p>It predicted galactic rotation as well as "dark matter" theory. Where it ultimately was falsified is in the lensing data IMO, but that took YEARS of reasearch to decide.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If they modify it to fit the results, it will be a completely new theory, but all it is is a curve fit, they have absolutely no explanation for why gravity would behave like that, so its only a theory in a very loose sense. </DIV></p><p>Utlimately every single theory has weaknesses and mainstream theory is no different.&nbsp; My point is that no theory should be taboo only because it's not "popular", particularly not one that is based upon emprical physics, MHD theory and is written by a Nobel Prize winning author that developed modern methods of desribing the behaviors of plasma.&nbsp; For goodness sake, I'm now being threatened merely for mentioning the fact that EM fields cause plasma to ebb and flow!</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've tried saying this before to no avail but it should be repeated:&nbsp; NOBODY here has any problem whatsoever with Birkeland's experiments. </DIV></p><p>I just can't talk about them in any "hard" science forum even though they epitomize "hard" science that uses real "hardware" to "demonstrate" the idea, as well as a mathematical presentation. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The bottom line is, DrRocket gave you the answer, and you responded with an enormous diatribe about Birkeland, someone whose methods nobody here has ever questioned.&nbsp; How is that any different from the way you acted in the other dark matter thread or the EU thread? &nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Nobody has ever questioned the fact he used EM fields in his work to make plasma move and to generate aurora around his spheres, but I'm being threated with virtual execution for mentioning the fact EM fields move plasma.&nbsp; Come on.&nbsp; This is untenable.&nbsp; You're trying to exile emprical physics from discussion while claiming ideas like inflation, which are literally supernatural in nature, are somehow "hard science", dispite the fact that I can't find one single product that uses inflation for anything useful. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>